New "TSDZ2 Torque Sensor Central Motor"

LeftCoastNurd said:
gain /should/ be on some sort of logarithmic scale, as you want small steps at the low end and bigger steps at the high end. too many naïve programmers implement linear gain steps (for instance 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 100%), if you do this with volume, brightness, or most any other power unit, you find the lower steps are too big, and the upper steps are too small.
I think this would be true mainly with firmware with a limited number of power levels. Say, 5 to 10. With 20 steps like the v 1.0 TSDZ2 OSF, the steps are so close together as is, that a strictly linear progression should not be all that bad. I could be wrong, but I don't think the 'non-intuitiveness' that a recent poster complained about has anything to do with the steps curve being made logarithmic. I don't think it is. But I don't really know all that much about it. Yet.
 
So, I have a question about calibrating the torque sensor of the TSDZ2. Mine just arrived Thursday, but my battery is not here yet. In the meanwhile I have been reading the OSF Wiki and also this thread. My dealer says calibrating the torque sensor is not essential but is recommended. The process, in the wiki could be better explained, I think. Obtaining a progression of weights is not at all straightforward. How to immobilize the bicycle and where could be better illustrated, I think. Also the units involved.

Some speak of using "gym weights"! I am a gym goer. A 10lb weight is already getting too large to fit on a pedal. Do you really need a continuous range between 0 and your bodyweight? I weigh 195lbs. Is that really an amount of weight that I could apply to the pedals? Some mention using luggage scales. I like this idea. How is it implemented? Again, what kind of range is ideal. I was in the ACE hardware and they had torque wrenches and one of them went from 10 to 150 ft/lbs. if I am not mistaken. I think the more common unit is nm and I don't know if I could just take the cranks off and put a torque wrench on the BB spindle and calibrate it that way.

I don't think I am the only one who could benefit from much more detailed (and maybe illustrated) descriptions of torque sensor calibration. Thanks in advance for any thoughts, ideas or how to's.
-H
 
leisesturm said:
I don't think I am the only one who could benefit from much more detailed (and maybe illustrated) descriptions of torque sensor calibration. Thanks in advance for any thoughts, ideas or how to's.
-H
After doing it it will be clear for you. Looking forward to see your contribution to the wiki.
 
Newton-meters is the SI/metric unit of force, while ft-lbs (properly lbf-ft) is the 'imperial' unit. 1 lbf-ft is about 1.35 N-m.

re: using dumbell/exercise weights, I think the thing to do would be to hang them off the pedal rather than try and put them on top of the pedal. My general plan that I'm still working through in my head is to get a couple 50s and a couple 10s, and do

1) my full weight (220 lbs)
2) 100 lbs (50+50)
3) 70 lbs (50+10+10)
4) 50 lbs (50)
5) 20 lbs (10+10)
6) 10 lbs (10)

and hope that's enough steps to interpolate the curve. in a pinch probably could do 50+50+10+10 for 120 lbs. to get all this under the pedal, I'll probably have to put the bike up on blocks (or I have a pair of truck ramps that would raise the wheels about a foot), and somehow brace the frame so it can't fall over while I'm wrestling with the weights, and lock the back wheel so the weight won't push the bike forward or spin the wheel. haven't really figured out what I'd use as a hook to stack the weights on, maybe a steel cable with a loop to go around the pedal, and a disk or cross bolt at the bottom to support the weights.
 
Sounds dangerous. There are no 50lb. weights btw. There are only 5,10,25 & 45lb weights. A 25lb weight is no joke and a 45lb plate is an absolute beast. That's why I think some kind of large torque wrench might be more workable. I didn't think asking here was a bad thing. What is the point of us all re-inventing the wheel? Aren't we supposed to help each other? I don't mind refining an idea but if I had any clue about all of this I wouldn't be asking. Obviously, this last isn't aimed at you. Only have one thread left before the wife gets mad.
 
Wapous said:
If the main gear's sprag clutch no longer drives the chainring and no "crunch crunch" is heard then it is sufficient to clean its mechanism. This mechanism must be clean and without lubricant.
After removing the protector, each of the components of the sprag mechanism can be dismantled, which includes 13 rollers and 13 springs. With good tweezers the work is easy. Each of the 26 components must be removed and cleaned as well as the protective cover and the housing. I used isopropyl alcohol as a cleanser.
Not sure if this is worth all of the work. It is certainly also wear and tear on the metal wedges in the game that the clutch no longer works!
 
leisesturm said:
Sounds dangerous. There are no 50lb. weights btw. There are only 5,10,25 & 45lb weights. A 25lb weight is no joke and a 45lb plate is an absolute beast. That's why I think some kind of large torque wrench might be more workable. I didn't think asking here was a bad thing. What is the point of us all re-inventing the wheel? Aren't we supposed to help each other? I don't mind refining an idea but if I had any clue about all of this I wouldn't be asking. Obviously, this last isn't aimed at you. Only have one thread left before the wife gets mad.

I think using a luggage scale is safer and easier, I used just a super cheap mechanical spring scale from a hardware store. I hanged the scale from a chin-up bar above the bike, with a rope that I could also pull down. The hook of the scale goes to pedal, and keeping the crank horizontal with my foot I was pulling down on rope attached to the scale. Fancier scale without a lenghtening spring would be easier to use as you don't need to change the position of the scale when keeping the pedal levelled. Torque wrench sounds like the easiest possible solution, as long as you find a fitting piece to the axle. I used weights between 5-30kg and my own weight 85kg and got a good curve. Between 30 and 85kg the difference between sensor readings are already minimal.
 
ilu said:
I think using a luggage scale is safer and easier, I used just a super cheap mechanical spring scale from a hardware store. I hanged the scale from a chin-up bar above the bike, with a rope that I could also pull down. The hook of the scale goes to pedal, and keeping the crank horizontal with my foot I was pulling down on rope attached to the scale. Fancier scale without a lenghtening spring would be easier to use as you don't need to change the position of the scale when keeping the pedal levelled. Torque wrench sounds like the easiest possible solution, as long as you find a fitting piece to the axle. I used weights between 5-30kg and my own weight 85kg and got a good curve. Between 30 and 85kg the difference between sensor readings are already minimal.

i'm not sure I'm picturing what you're doing with the luggage scale? I do have one that goes up to 50 lbs, which could be used for the low end readings, but pulling down on it with a consistent force, I'm not sure I can do that without its readings bouncing all over.

I'd have to think about the relationship of rotational torque in lb-ft to linear lbs before I'd mess with a torque wrench. I think you'd need to take the crank arm length into account...
 
LeftCoastNurd said:
i'm not sure I'm picturing what you're doing with the luggage scale? I do have one that goes up to 50 lbs, which could be used for the low end readings, but pulling down on it with a consistent force, I'm not sure I can do that without its readings bouncing all over.

You pull up in it. Have the crank arm horizontal facing rearwards. I lean on the seat to counteract and help the rear wheel with traction. A second person to hold the brake works also. I measured up to 50KG like this and used my body weight for the final reading
 
LeftCoastNurd said:
ilu said:
I think using a luggage scale is safer and easier, I used just a super cheap mechanical spring scale from a hardware store. I hanged the scale from a chin-up bar above the bike, with a rope that I could also pull down. The hook of the scale goes to pedal, and keeping the crank horizontal with my foot I was pulling down on rope attached to the scale. Fancier scale without a lenghtening spring would be easier to use as you don't need to change the position of the scale when keeping the pedal levelled. Torque wrench sounds like the easiest possible solution, as long as you find a fitting piece to the axle. I used weights between 5-30kg and my own weight 85kg and got a good curve. Between 30 and 85kg the difference between sensor readings are already minimal.

i'm not sure I'm picturing what you're doing with the luggage scale? I do have one that goes up to 50 lbs, which could be used for the low end readings, but pulling down on it with a consistent force, I'm not sure I can do that without its readings bouncing all over.

I'd have to think about the relationship of rotational torque in lb-ft to linear lbs before I'd mess with a torque wrench. I think you'd need to take the crank arm length into account...
I've looked at luggage scales on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Luggage-Scales/b?ie=UTF8&node=2477391011 and they all read to 110lbs. They are cheap (to me) as well. I've seen one that reads much higher that I am working out the details of how it might be made to work: https://www.amazon.com/Smart-Weigh-...g=4158093|ne03b04283d5f4bd5a13eff35487b18b923. I don't know but I think a more or less consistent force could be applied long enough to get a reading from both the scale and the display. Also, if a torque wrench is NOT used in conjunction with readings using the crank-arms, the crankarms length does not have to be taken into account. Make all the measurements with the torque wrench, including the final one, which I have not decided must equal ones bodyweight, and you have a proper curve of relationships between 'real' weights (torques) and the interpolated ones of the ADC.
 
bergerandfries said:
LeftCoastNurd said:
How was the max temp of 85C/185F determined? my motor reaches that rather quickly on a 27C/80F ambient kind of day like today wehn I'm climbing hills and such. I did some poking around, and it seems like a lot of DC perm magnet motors are rated to operate at temps nearly twice that hot, like 150C
cashino discovered it by personal experience. He has pictures of the fried motor in the wiki. 85C might be conservative, but I bet it would cook off at 95C, so not SUPER conservative. True that high quality motors might tolerate high temps, but the consumer grade motor in the TSDZ2 has proven that it will not tolerate 150C. Somewhere someone posted that the lower grade magnets are the issue...

The 85°C will be specific to the position of the temperature sensor within the motor. The inner parts of the motor will be much hotter than this, but it would be difficult to measure these temperatures. So, it has been found that keeping the temperature of that sensor location below 85°C will stop the hottest parts of the motor from overheating.
 
jbalat said:
Haven't had to repair the bosch motor yet knock.on wood and out of warranty but I know there is a bearing kit you can buy for it that I'm sure is way overpriced:) agree tsdz2 is easy to work on, I'm sure bosch will not be any different and there are videos out there to help if the need arises.

There is at least one UK company that fixes Bosch motors, and sells rebuild kits.
It looks quite easy to work on - as long as you have a bearing press.
 
Balmorhea said:
LeftCoastNurd said:
many bicycle riders never exceed a cadence of 60 rpm... does that mean they are not 'cyclists' ?

Yes. Mainly it means they're not even trying.

I ran on the Circuit Of The Americas track tonight during Bike Night. I pedaled up to about 39 mph with a 52/13 top gear. If an old fat guy can put in about 120 rpm, anybody can do 90, which is considered the starting point for performance cycling. Since we have help, we should be able to spin faster than that.

Any pedal assist system that stops just as a real cyclist is getting going should be rejected out of hand. There are other reasons TSDZ2 should be rejected out of hand, though.

It's the laws of physics!!

The BBS goes higher because it's geared differently and turns slower for a given cadence.
This is why Force weakening has been added to the free firmware.

It's designed for the millions of Chinese commuters and cargo bikes, not serious Western cyclists. If you want that, cough up your 6k+ for a Brose or a Bosch.
 
Mr.Flibble said:
Balmorhea said:
LeftCoastNurd said:
many bicycle riders never exceed a cadence of 60 rpm... does that mean they are not 'cyclists' ?
Any pedal assist system that stops just as a real cyclist is getting going should be rejected out of hand. There are other reasons TSDZ2 should be rejected out of hand, though.

It's the laws of physics!!

The BBS goes higher because it's geared differently and turns slower for a given cadence.
This is why Force weakening has been added to the free firmware.

It's designed for the millions of Chinese commuters and cargo bikes, not serious Western cyclists. If you want that, cough up your 6k+ for a Brose or a Bosch.

In my book, it’s the rider who uses a bike for essential transportation, and not only for fooling around, who is the serious cyclist. But everyone who rides regularly knows that if you want to make a lot of pedal power, you have to pedal fast. That’s the same all over the world.

My BBS02 turned plenty fast on 48V; just about as fast as my legs can go. But I haven’t had one of those in a while. I use front hub motors now because I get enough practice fixing other peoples bikes, and I don’t need new reasons to have to fix mine.

I think it would be cool if there were a reliable, well-designed torque sensing motor unit that were retrofittable to a regular bike. But the TSDZ2 brings those two deal breakers even before you find out that it shuts down when you turn up the power.
 
You obviously dont fix bikes then, they are not the most reliable of things. To put things into perspective I have more things fail on my bike than I do the motor, so I guess on a bike measure of relaibility,the motor is more relaible than a bike.
 
Yea as mentioned several times already, there are different ways to get the cadence higher. But apparently this guy just does not want to get it, so no point arguing with him. I wonder why he's still so fixed on reading this thread though.
 
Waynemarlow said:
You obviously dont fix bikes then, they are not the most reliable of things. To put things into perspective I have more things fail on my bike than I do the motor, so I guess on a bike measure of relaibility,the motor is more relaible than a bike.

Whats breaking down on your bicycle more so then ebike components?
A mid drive already puts more then human power through the drive train, a bicycle drive train not engineered for super human wattage.
A hub motor wouldnt break down, especially a direct drive, but you still can have other ebike components break on you. Most common is the throttle, or spokes, or tubes.
 
Waynemarlow said:
To put things into perspective I have more things fail on my bike than I do the motor, so I guess on a bike measure of relaibility,the motor is more relaible than a bike.

Some; not all. Surely there are many garbage bikes that can't cross the street without a problem, but most people who own them can't discern a problem anyway.

The only e-motors I've used or serviced that matched the reliability of good cycle components have been direct drive hub motors. My BBS02 needed more attention than everything else on the bike combined, other than the chains and sprockets it chewed up regularly. I gave it to someone else when I switched, but now it's back in my possession so I can fix a crapped-out pedal sensor. Oh joy.
 
So stick with hub motors, whats the problem ? In my useage I would destroy a hub motor on probably the first ride, we do a lot of low speed climbing where the hub motor would be only rotating a few 10's of rpm at near full power, the heat generated would cook every bearing in it. If we used a geared hub motor then the weight on the hub would make the bike unrideable in steep single track so thats not an avenue either. So for me a hub motor is non starter.

However for a road commuter I have my views that a hub motor is probably a good thing to have.
 
Waynemarlow said:
So stick with hub motors, whats the problem ? In my useage I would destroy a hub motor on probably the first ride, we do a lot of low speed climbing where the hub motor would be only rotating a few 10's of rpm at near full power, the heat generated would cook every bearing in it. If we used a geared hub motor then the weight on the hub would make the bike unrideable in steep single track so thats not an avenue either. So for me a hub motor is non starter.

However for a road commuter I have my views that a hub motor is probably a good thing to have.

Unless you buy a stealth bomber. I originally had a 13kg hub motor (crystalite x5404) on a wide 24" back wheel and it could easily handle up to 10kw without overheating. It could climb anything without even slowing down :) Fortunately I have moved on from there and I'm happier with the torque sensing experience when mountain bike riding on my Trek Powerfly and TSDZ2 and less weight in the back wheel helps the bike handle and Jump a lot better too!
 
@Wapous. Great writing and pictures. Where could I order Teflon washers for torque sensor? If you order a new torque sensor, no washers are included. Some stores sells torque sensor with springs and others sells only torque sensor without springs.
 
Wapous said:
dameri said:
@Wapous. Great writing and pictures. Where could I order Teflon washers for torque sensor? If you order a new torque sensor, no washers are included. Some stores sells torque sensor with springs and others sells only torque sensor without springs.

You will need to order the material in bulk and trim the washers yourself.
Aliexpress Supplier (good service): https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32967578990.html?spm=2114.13010708.0.0.29554c4ddaeMzb
You can order 0.5mm or 0.3mm Teflon sheets. I recommend 0.3mm for a precise fit. I installed 3X 0.3mm washers instead of 2X 0.5mm washers.

Thank you for information.
 
Morning all. We have flashed the TSDZ2 with the V20 Beta 1 software from https://github.com/emmebrusa/TSDZ2-Smart-EBike-1 and want to update the 860C firmware to match. Is this possible please? We are doing this as we are struggling to get the 860C display talking to the TSDZ2 with the V1.0 software and so are using the emmebrusa fork that allows up to configure the TSDZ2 software BEFORE it is flashed into the controller. We are currently running this with the stock LCD5 display which is fine until we need to reconfigure which of course means reflashing the motor again. Many thanks all.
 
Swannking said:
Elinx said:
Jaybee258 said:
...... I like the heat sinks that you made. That's the first time I've seen that done. ....
Not exactly the first time.
I think andrea_104kg was the first experimenting with a sort of heatsinks.
QuirkyOrk and Owskov also placed heatsinks on the housing.
Swannking said:
.... I would like to add the heat sink also. Looks like u screwed then onto the housing. I think using JB weld should work also and more simple.
That should be working too. Heat resistant glue could also be an option

Besides heatsinks there are more options to control the temperature of the Tsdz2.
Most of them are mentioned in this topic.

I did read those suggestions and did the modification. I like the heat sink idea to help dissipate the heat but don’t have the source for heat sink which is low profile and not looking like a mad science project when it’s put on the motor.

I finally got to adding heat sinks to the motor. I got the 10x10x10mm mini heat sink from amazon and glued them on the housing using arctic silver adhesive.
 

Attachments

  • AB4DE6BA-660B-4239-92AA-3DE8F8C11165.jpeg
    AB4DE6BA-660B-4239-92AA-3DE8F8C11165.jpeg
    58.9 KB · Views: 1,584
  • 43FE6751-4FFC-4EBA-B847-B2CCB42AFE91.jpeg
    43FE6751-4FFC-4EBA-B847-B2CCB42AFE91.jpeg
    33.4 KB · Views: 1,584
Finished up the heat sink modification.
Supplies used:
10x10x10mm heat sink x 39 pieces
22x22x10mm heat sink x 4
5 gr arctic silver
Total cost: about $40USD
 

Attachments

  • 8E22449A-6073-4AC1-A033-882C4125F47A.jpeg
    8E22449A-6073-4AC1-A033-882C4125F47A.jpeg
    42.1 KB · Views: 1,481
  • 82FD35B8-7186-429B-8ECC-42084FB9DA6C.jpeg
    82FD35B8-7186-429B-8ECC-42084FB9DA6C.jpeg
    47 KB · Views: 1,481
Back
Top